hock
Well-Known Member
Hope this works .. as a larger rider myself I couldn’t agree more with this article. Plus I think Sue Dyson is bloody fabulous!
Sue Dyson article
- Thread starter hock
- Start date
Hope this works .. as a larger rider myself I couldn’t agree more with this article. Plus I think Sue Dyson is bloody fabulous!
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
I fully agree about rider size, weight and saddle fit for the combination.
If SD hadn't been such a blinkered idiot and got herself struck off for 'disgraceful conduct' when falsifying details of her pilot study on rider weight she could have been carrying on with valuable research on this.
If SD hadn't been such a blinkered idiot and got herself struck off for 'disgraceful conduct' when falsifying details of her pilot study on rider weight she could have been carrying on with valuable research on this.
ycbm
Einstein would be proud of my Insanity...
The shame was that there was nothing wrong with the study, as I recollect,
but she falsified a welfare sign-off that she should have got before the study started. So "just" an administrative fiddle but one of crucial importance in a study about welfare!
.
but she falsified a welfare sign-off that she should have got before the study started. So "just" an administrative fiddle but one of crucial importance in a study about welfare!
.
hock
Well-Known Member
It’s such a breath of fresh air that quite a sensitive topic is dealt with in such a professional and knowledgeable way. Great piece of writing!
ElleSkywalkingintheair
As excited as Kitty about to be a bridesmaid
Sadly she's tainted her research now with her conduct. Whereas the subject and reasoning behind it is admirable, I can no longer believe she's 100% above board and wonder what else she has falsified. It would be better if another professional took over the research as people will always doubt her now sadly.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Well, she invented a wholly fictitious Home Office official to state that Home Office approval was not needed for the study.
Additionally, the very heavy (VH) rider was between 23.6-27.5% of horse weight
, and the study, if duly scrutinised beforehand, may well have been refused permission for that rider to take part on equine welfare grounds.As it is, even the heavy (H) rider's tests were abandoned due to lameness. The H rider was 'only' 15.3–17.9% of horse weight, so well under the widely touted 20% limit.
All 13 H and VH rider tests (lameness, n = 12; behaviour, n = 1) and one of 12 M rider tests (lameness) were abandoned.
Last edited:
Red-1
I used to be decisive, now I'm not so sure...
Gosh, the numbers of heavy and very heavy to fail to complete the test, as in all of them (!) makes me think that when someone comes on here with a "My horse is doing XXXXX when ridden, what would you do?" or, "my horse has gone lame, what would you suggest?" should actually start with what type is the horse and how much do you weigh!Well, she invented a wholly fictitious Home Office official to state that Home Office approval was not needed for the study.
Additionally, the very heavy (VH) rider was between 23.6-27.5% of horse weight
As it is, even the heavy (H) rider's tests were abandoned due to lameness. The H rider was 'only' 15.3–17.9% of horse weight, so well under the widely touted 20% limit.
All 13 H and VH rider tests (lameness, n = 12; behaviour, n = 1) and one of 12 M rider tests (lameness) were abandoned.
AShetlandBitMeOnce
Well-Known Member
I can't see the article posted in the original post, is anyone able to re-post for me? I would be interested to have a read
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
One of the big problems was that the saddles were not fitted to the rider as well as the horse. The VH and H riders were forced to ride in saddles far too small for them, which put them right on the back of the saddle and screwed up thier positions, this will likely have contributed to any lameness but no mention of it was made in the study report that i saw.
palo1
Well-Known Member
Well yes, but equally I am wondering about the reasons for all of those horses to fail as I can't imagine that the rider weight issue alone was the reason; I know SD has eagle eyes for equine discomfort but if rider weight were purely the reason for the horse's failure to complete the test then the 'guidelines' of 20% and 15% seem to become unacceptable. Which would be interesting...!!
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
Saddle fit for the riders did get mentioned. The saddle fit for the horses themselves was checked and rechecked during the study. There could have been a very interesting off shoot re the importance of saddle fit for rider and how it impinges on horse comfort.
It is obvious that the VH rider was wrong in all respects on the horse, that should never have been permitted even at halt.
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
yes, it mentions that it was too small but no mention of how that alone could cause lameness.
A better study would have used the same type of saddle in sizes that fit the rider (provided it was ok length for the horse) and was well fitted to the horse. I agree the VH rider should not have been permitted on that horse in that saddle.
However I suspect for the H rider that if the saddle had fit her correctly then the lameness may not have happened. There are to many variables to say for definite that weight caused the lameness, it could equally have been caused by a saddle that doesnt fit the rider forcing a lot of pressure over the horses kidneys, the position the rider was forced to ride in or a combination of all 3. also doesnt say if it was foreleg or hindleg lameness.
Also between riders what assessment was done? what rest did the horses have? did they ride the horse in strict order of weight or was it randomised? If L and M rode first with minimal rest for the horse between then H would have been getting on a tired horse with a saddle that doesnt fit properly. If VH rode first did thier weight cause a problem that meant H was getting on an already sore horse?
So many variables and a badly designed test.
I agree the work needs done and we do need some scientific data behind what weight is ok and what is not but the study needs to be properly designed to eliminate variables as far as possible.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
It was just a pilot study, it wasn't an in-depth study, so there were limitations of time, £££s and resources.
6 loaned horses each with their own saddles fitted for their own riders, and 4 test riders who each had to ride in the horse's current saddles.
It would have been very interesting to see how the horses might have coped better with the H rider in particular if different saddles which fitted the rider better and also still fitted the horses was used. That would have been an obvious follow on study to do another time. Maybe someone else will yet take it up.
6 loaned horses each with their own saddles fitted for their own riders, and 4 test riders who each had to ride in the horse's current saddles.
It would have been very interesting to see how the horses might have coped better with the H rider in particular if different saddles which fitted the rider better and also still fitted the horses was used. That would have been an obvious follow on study to do another time. Maybe someone else will yet take it up.
Last edited:
conniegirl
Well-Known Member
But equally it could be argued that the pilot study was biased toward the result that Dyson wanted due to the fact that it only the heavier riders were disadvantaged in such a way.
Its bad science.
Tiddlypom
Carries on creakily
I don't think that it was bad science, but it was just a starting point
The issues with some of the riders not fitting the saddles were well detailed in the study, they weren't glossed over.
The issues with some of the riders not fitting the saddles were well detailed in the study, they weren't glossed over.
SusieT
Well-Known Member
Yes. And the fact that the author has since been so discredited to be struck off from their professional body really needs to be appreciated when taking the data as read.
sbloom
Well-Known Member
I have met one of the riders and from my own knowledge and what she said, yes, not having saddles that, even if a bit small because of the horse's back length, fitted the riders better may have made a much better study but as has been said it was a pilot study.
Research into ridden equestrianism is almost impossible in many ways. It is such a complex area that by the time we reduce the topic studied so that ONE issue is isolated and everything else is controlled, it becomes less meaningful to apply to everyday life.
The heavier the rider in this study, as you can see, the less they sit over their own feet, a huge factor, so that positional aspect is in relation to the saddle AND to their own balance against gravity. Also for a heavier rider most fitters would be using a sheepskin or similar, and the saddle would likely be balanced differently for them too.
Red-1
I used to be decisive, now I'm not so sure...
With the lameness, I do wonder just how 'lame' they had to be to get stopped, bearing in mind that the person running it is also one of the foremost people for spotting lameness that others can't see. Also bearing in mind that it helps her cause if heavy riders are proved to be more harmful than thought (close to her heart and also more shock value = more publicity = more £). It would be highly likely that a horse would be 'pulled' from the study for showing weakness one side than the other. I know I don't walk level when carrying a heavy weight as it tests weaker muscles, without actually causing me pain or damage.
Don't get me wrong, I got too heavy for my horse when other stuff was happening and stopped doing much with her at all as I didn't want to disadvantage her. I then made a monumental effort to get it under control, which I have. Not easy, but do-able.
I am interested in the categories used in the study though, even when the NHS said I was just into the 'obese' category on the BMI chart, I didn't even look as heavy as the 'moderate' rider. I'm not saying that heavy riders shouldn't be stopped from riding inappropriate horses, but I think the study was flawed and now she is discredited, not of use.
I do hope that someone else does a study, signs it off correctly, covers the variables etc. I dare say many people would volunteer for such a study. Maybe something the BHS could look into?
Don't get me wrong, I got too heavy for my horse when other stuff was happening and stopped doing much with her at all as I didn't want to disadvantage her. I then made a monumental effort to get it under control, which I have. Not easy, but do-able.
I am interested in the categories used in the study though, even when the NHS said I was just into the 'obese' category on the BMI chart, I didn't even look as heavy as the 'moderate' rider. I'm not saying that heavy riders shouldn't be stopped from riding inappropriate horses, but I think the study was flawed and now she is discredited, not of use.
I do hope that someone else does a study, signs it off correctly, covers the variables etc. I dare say many people would volunteer for such a study. Maybe something the BHS could look into?
Jambarissa
Well-Known Member
That is really interesting and sad the study wasn't taken further.
I was surprised by the photos of 'larger riders', I wouldn't have classed them as larger really - although it could be the angle.
You see much worse in showing classes
Larger riders need this type of research, not to shame them into giving up riding but to help them know when their situation is wrong and to help them find suitable horses and saddles.
I was surprised by the photos of 'larger riders', I wouldn't have classed them as larger really - although it could be the angle.
You see much worse in showing classes
Larger riders need this type of research, not to shame them into giving up riding but to help them know when their situation is wrong and to help them find suitable horses and saddles.